DMC TX being sued by DeLorean's Widow

[vtdmc]

http://wtop.com/movies/2015/01/30-years-later-back-to-the-future-car-in-legal-battle/

DeLorean’s widow, Sally, claims in a federal lawsuit that Texas-based DeLorean Motor Company has been illegally using the DeLorean name to sell hats, pens, notebooks, key chains and other items, and has illegally licensed the name and images to other companies including Nike, Mattel, Urban Outfitters and Apple.



I don't know who else saw this.

[Mark D]

I wonder if anything new has actually ocurred with the lawsuit that this website is reporting on it again... About a year ago I remember a similar discussion popping up about a pending lawsuit. Could just be a dry news day and because it's 2015 it's somehow relevant again?

EDIT
Found it:

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?9214-DeLorean-Texas-sued-by-DeLorean-estate&highlight=delorean+sued

[David T]

I wonder if anything new has actually ocurred with the lawsuit that this website is reporting on it again... About a year ago I remember a similar discussion popping up about a pending lawsuit. Could just be a dry news day and because it's 2015 it's somehow relevant again?

EDIT
Found it:

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?9214-DeLorean-Texas-sued-by-DeLorean-estate&highlight=delorean+sued

It's really a shame it has to come to this. JZD probably didn't leave her much and she found a lawyer who figures the lawsuit is worth something. These things can take a very long time to resolve and can become expensive. Most of the time they get settled before trial since no one really wants a protracted and expensive court battle. This could define just who does own the trademark going on into the future.

[mluder]

It's really a shame it has to come to this. JZD probably didn't leave her much and she found a lawyer who figures the lawsuit is worth something. These things can take a very long time to resolve and can become expensive. Most of the time they get settled before trial since no one really wants a protracted and expensive court battle. This could define just who does own the trademark going on into the future.

... The future?


.....Sorry, couldn't resist.

[valdez]

It's really a shame it has to come to this. JZD probably didn't leave her much and she found a lawyer who figures the lawsuit is worth something. These things can take a very long time to resolve and can become expensive. Most of the time they get settled before trial since no one really wants a protracted and expensive court battle. This could define just who does own the trademark going on into the future.

Sounds like Sally is just being greedy again. I remember John's daughter Kat mentioning something here about how the kids will never get any inheritance since she got it all and doesn't want anything to do with the Delorean family. Sounds like she is behind a lot of family drama.

[Silverbullet]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/09/30-years-later-back-to-the-future-car-in-legal-battle/21127692/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl23%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D596276

Guess there is a meeting next month....

[Shep]

Ha.

Ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha :hihi2: Oh man what a turn of events! Hopefully the DeLorean estate wins this one; that's some bullshit use of the family's name right there.

[Shep]

I like how everyone is saying this is a greedy poor lady but is missing the blatantly obvious -- DMCH is using a name that is NOT theirs to profit off of. That would be like me making a trademark for "Clooney", making millions off of it, and expecting big George himself to NOT sue me. C'mon, give me a break. It's not my name, I have no rights to it. Same applies here. Just because JZD is dead doesn't mean you can capitalize on it.

Somehow, I saw this coming a mile away. And I sincerely hope DMCH learns their lesson from it.

[David T]

I like how everyone is saying this is a greedy poor lady but is missing the blatantly obvious -- DMCH is using a name that is NOT theirs to profit off of. That would be like me making a trademark for "Clooney", making millions off of it, and expecting big George himself to NOT sue me. C'mon, give me a break. It's not my name, I have no rights to it. Same applies here. Just because JZD is dead doesn't mean you can capitalize on it.

Somehow, I saw this coming a mile away. And I sincerely hope DMCH learns their lesson from it.

Hard to draw such conclusions without seeing all of the evidence and any paper trail. It could be DMCH had some kind of deal with JZD if only a verbal one or maybe something more formal. If it was a slam-dunk you would think JZD would have come to some kind of a settlement long ago with them. DMCH is not stupid, they must believe they have some kind of a claim to use it. I would not characterize Sally as a "greedy old lady". I would say this is more of a desperation move to gain a source of income since JZD probably was not able to leave her much. Don't believe everything you read in the papers. If you are worrying about the kids, Christine took most of it. If anyone should be supporting them you would think she would be the one.

[hmcelraft]

For those who know Stephen Wynne, I believe you would agree with me that he is a very good business man. I would suspect that he has expected this sort of thing. A fellow like Stephen does not do things without some careful planning. Nothing ever occurred while John D was alive - now, the widow wants some action? Personally, I find it hard to believe that Sally would have a leg to stand on. That said, the court of public opinion doesn't count.

[Shep]

For those who know Stephen Wynne, I believe you would agree with me that he is a very good business man.Frankly I lost all remaining respect for the guy after he and his posse tried to extort me for information relating to one of my blog posts about DMCH. I'm not even kidding either, the whole company's terrific at the "scare tactic" but it sure as hell doesn't work on me, and I've told them flat-out I'm not afraid of them. Seemed to shut them up when I did too, haven't heard from them since.

FYI: the "lesson" I speak of is one that you can't just stomp all over everyone with legal threats and such and expect someone to not fight back. The world doesn't work that way. :smokelot:

[OverlandMan]

Ha.

Ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha :hihi2: Oh man what a turn of events! Hopefully the DeLorean estate wins this one; that's some bullshit use of the family's name right there.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/c/c0/Lumbergh.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091212072520
I'm gonna have to kind of disagree with you there...

My support goes to the company that supports our community. I just hope the legal fees/settlements/etc. don't get passed on to the customers.

As far as all the legal stuff goes, I don't have any of the facts so not even going to try and weigh in there. Let the lawyers sort that crap out.

[hmcelraft]

Frankly I lost all remaining respect for the guy after he and his posse tried to extort me for information relating to one of my blog posts about DMCH. I'm not even kidding either, the whole company's terrific at the "scare tactic" but it sure as hell doesn't work on me, and I've told them flat-out I'm not afraid of them. Seemed to shut them up when I did too, haven't heard from them since.

FYI: the "lesson" I speak of is one that you can't just stomp all over everyone with legal threats and such and expect someone to not fight back. The world doesn't work that way. :smokelot:

I never had anything but good dealings with Stephen and all of DMCH. I've had some issues with some parts from time to time but he has always handled the issues in a way that I was always satisfied with the result. Actually, I can say that about all of the vendors, even Ed Bernstein - although my dealing with Ed, which were all good, predated his sad memory and emotional issues.

[David T]

Frankly I lost all remaining respect for the guy after he and his posse tried to extort me for information relating to one of my blog posts about DMCH. I'm not even kidding either, the whole company's terrific at the "scare tactic" but it sure as hell doesn't work on me, and I've told them flat-out I'm not afraid of them. Seemed to shut them up when I did too, haven't heard from them since.

FYI: the "lesson" I speak of is one that you can't just stomp all over everyone with legal threats and such and expect someone to not fight back. The world doesn't work that way. :smokelot:

Actually that tactic does work and it works often enough that people use it and most of the time get away with it so they continue to use it. As you explained, it does not and cannot work ALL the time. Brings to mind "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT you cannot fool ALL of the people ALL of the time". Enough people will be intimidated figuring you wouldn't take such a strong position unless you can back it up. Anyway, who wants to go to Newark NJ and sit in the court? It might get interesting.

[vtdmc]

Sadly the cost for this to get resolved will most likely being passed onto us, the customers.



http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/c/c0/Lumbergh.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091212072520
I'm gonna have to kind of disagree with you there...

My support goes to the company that supports our community. I just hope the legal fees/settlements/etc. don't get passed on to the customers.

As far as all the legal stuff goes, I don't have any of the facts so not even going to try and weigh in there. Let the lawyers sort that crap out.

[AirmanPika]

Or she doesn't have a case and this will all fizzle out. DMCH could simply be entertaining this meeting to be respectful, but at the same time end any debate. We'll see.

[Dangermouse]

I love legalese:

"“There is definitely no written agreement” relinquishing the trademarks, (lawyer) Thompson said, adding, “to the extent that any written agreement exists, it says the opposite.”

[LordFly]

I'm definitely pulling for DMCH 100% on this one. They're the ones building the cars, fixing the cars, selling parts, sourcing suitable replacement parts, developing new replacements, etc. If DMCH were gone, I can tell you right now that my car would not be in the good condition it is not, and might not even be running. And I can also say that Sally hasn't done a damn thing to help my car in any way. In fact, if anything, she's hindering it indirectly by increasing prices (since DMCH's legal fees will obviously have to come from somewhere). If she wanted to work WITH them, that would be something totally different. But as far as I know, she wants nothing to do with the cars, she just wants money from a lawsuit.

To be fair, the DeLorean name was Johns, not hers. I don't think Kathryn has ever tried anything like that.

[mluder]

I like how everyone is saying this is a greedy poor lady but is missing the blatantly obvious -- DMCH is using a name that is NOT theirs to profit off of. That would be like me making a trademark for "Clooney", making millions off of it, and expecting big George himself to NOT sue me. C'mon, give me a break. It's not my name, I have no rights to it. Same applies here. Just because JZD is dead doesn't mean you can capitalize on it.

Somehow, I saw this coming a mile away. And I sincerely hope DMCH learns their lesson from it.

You're arguing apples and oranges here... George Clooney is a live person not a brand (arguable as some celebrities have reached the status of being a brand... The name DeLorean, as it applies in this circumstance, is a defunct brand name of a car company that no longer exists. The trademarks appear to have been abandoned and stylized ones applied for and approved. DMCH is not profiting from the persons name but rather the name of a dead brand label. It would be different if DMCH tried to represent themselves as a product of John DeLorean - something he invented - but they are an entirely separate company. Heck, they don't even use his image in their marketing.

The case has no legs and will get thrown out just like it did a few years ago.

[Denverdelorean]

It's not his name. it's the name of a company, DMCH bought the name of the COMPANY as far as I know. This is asinine.

[lindbergh]

Unfortunately, the DeLorean family probably has a case. DMCH bought the trademarks to DMC dealing with anything with the car. They should have negotiated to buy the DMC trademark lock stock and barrel, then they own it. This is my understanding, but it is a shame either way as we will likely pay for it.

[DavidProehl]

Looks like Houston was working on settling out of court, but it isn't going as smooth as planned:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/08/07/settlement-in-suit-over-back-to-future-car-hits-bump/

Of course this could be part of the normal negotiation process where each side's lawyers are asking for the world so they can seem reasonable when they meet in the middle.

[DL4567]

Looks like Houston was working on settling out of court, but it isn't going as smooth as planned:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/08/07/settlement-in-suit-over-back-to-future-car-hits-bump/

Of course this could be part of the normal negotiation process where each side's lawyers are asking for the world so they can seem reasonable when they meet in the middle.

Ugh, that article. :rolleyes1:

The "Back to the Future" car! Bla bla bla "back to the future!" Such and such car featured in "Back to the Future!" Widow Sally Back to the Future seeks Back to the Future money from Back to the Future car company in Texas!

I know a lot of articles do that, but the beginning of this one was over the top. Like they think nobody knows what a "DeLorean" is.

[kbrown84]

Unfortunately, the DeLorean family probably has a case. DMCH bought the trademarks to DMC dealing with anything with the car. They should have negotiated to buy the DMC trademark lock stock and barrel, then they own it. This is my understanding, but it is a shame either way as we will likely pay for it.

Just goes to show that more time and effort should have been put towards R&D of new parts and improving the quality of parts instead of selling overpriced backpacks and iPad covers.
Just my thoughts...

[Jimmyvonviggle]

Just goes to show that more time and effort should have been put towards R&D of new parts and improving the quality of parts instead of selling overpriced backpacks and iPad covers.
Just my thoughts...

What do you think pays for R and D?

[Chris4099]

What do you think pays for R and D?

My guess: The near 100% profit margin they make on NOS parts and trademark licenses.

[Totally 80s]

My guess: The near 100% profit margin they make on NOS parts and trademark licenses.

100 percent profit margin??? Where are you getting your figures from? You must work for DMCH? tell us more.

[Chris4099]

100 percent profit margin??? Where are you getting your figures from? You must work for DMCH? tell us more.

I see you changed your original post. First of all, let me reply to that. They do this common thing of also charging Shipping and HANDLING. This should in theory cover most of the cost of having a person take the part off the shelf and put it into a box. As for the cost of the part itself, there was an article that came out years ago on Steven Wynn that mentions he has already paid off the loan he used to purchase the NOS inventory. So basically, the parts are now no cost to him. There was also a mention of his storage and insurance costs. I can't remember the exact amount, but it was around $100k per year. So when you factor in the sales volume they must have and the relatively small in comparison for storage costs, I still stand by my original statement that it is near 100% profit (note I did say "near" which implies just under 100%).

I suppose we could put those storage costs under the service umbrella since that's done in the same building. Then it would be exactly 100% profit, but that's getting picky. :)

[OverlandMan]

As for the cost of the part itself, there was an article that came out years ago on Steven Wynn that mentions he has already paid off the loan he used to purchase the NOS inventory. So basically, the parts are now no cost to him. There was also a mention of his storage and insurance costs. I can't remember the exact amount, but it was around $100k per year. So when you factor in the sales volume they must have and the relatively small in comparison for storage costs, I still stand by my original statement that it is near 100% profit (note I did say "near" which implies just under 100%).


Sorry man but this is failed business logic. There is still a cost for the parts that you divide across the ENTIRE inventory both sold and unsold. While it may be in his favor, the cost still exists and always will regardless of how it was initially paid for (ie: your loan comment). The rest of what you cite is recurring overhead and by far a small portion of what it really is I'd imagine.

I've put together 2-3 business plans including financial pro-formua workbooks that break out all financial aspects of running a business (ie: Cost of goods sold, expenses, income, etc.). There is a significant amount of things you have to take into consideration that you don't really think about until you've executed a couple of businesses and seen it first hand.

Think about the limited customer base the DMCH franchises have. Of the supposed 6k-6,500 cars still existing, they're probably only selling parts most of the time for the 1,500-2k cars actually roadworthy (IIR that # comes from vehicle registrations). I would never criticize them for selling t-shirts, hats, pens and so on for no other reason than just to expand their customer-base and add additional income. I'm just glad these vendors exist for us owners.

Its too bad about this lawsuit because it can do absolutely no good for DMCH or its customers. I'm not going to try to put on my legal hat here as I don't know enough about the case.

[Tillsy]

I don't see the relevance of DMCH paying off its debt - except to congratulate them for taking on the risk and challenge of supporting this car, along with all the innovations and support by other vendors such as MidWest, NorthWest, DPI, Grady, etc.

If one takes on the risk of an investment and manages to pay that off, regardless if it be a home or stocks or parts or whatever, then bloody good work - albeit it is nobody else's business.

It by no means others should start dictating that you provide free accomodation in your paid off home, share out your paid stocks, give away your paid parts, etc.

[David T]

I don't see the relevance of DMCH paying off its debt - except to congratulate them for taking on the risk and challenge of supporting this car, along with all the innovations and support by other vendors such as MidWest, NorthWest, DPI, Grady, etc.

If one takes on the risk of an investment and manages to pay that off, regardless if it be a home or stocks or parts or whatever, then bloody good work - albeit it is nobody else's business.

It by no means others should start dictating that you provide free accomodation in your paid off home, share out your paid stocks, give away your paid parts, etc.

Those parts cost the business every day. Among the costs include what it costs to maintain the building, taxes, repairs, etc, the personnel to handle inventory and shipping, the cost of the racks and other materiel handling equipment, insurance, loss due to damaged or missing items. In some States they charge tax based on the value of the inventory. It costs a lot. Just because the loan is paid off does not mean these parts didn't cost DMCH money. All it means is he no longer has to pay interest on the loan. Bottom line, the business is entitled to make money. Steve W risked a LOT to buy the parts and continue to support us and the way he is rewarded for this is by the profit on those precious parts. You didn't step up and risk millions to do this so you have no business telling DMCH how much they should charge. Be glad they did. Competition from other vendors keeps them honest so the prices are not excessive.

[louielouie2000]

Unfortunately, the DeLorean family probably has a case. DMCH bought the trademarks to DMC dealing with anything with the car. They should have negotiated to buy the DMC trademark lock stock and barrel, then they own it. This is my understanding, but it is a shame either way as we will likely pay for it.

There is a long-running debate in the DeLorean community about whether or not the logo DMC-Texas owns is in fact the original DeLorean Motor Company logo. The one DMC-Texas owns has a shadow effect behind the block letters- the original does not. Perhaps they do own the original and simply updated it- who knows.

I tend to think if DMC-Texas was using John DeLorean's trademarks, he would have gone after them. DeLorean declared bankruptcy at the end of his life, and spent his last years in a 2 bedroom rental apartment in New Jersey. If John had a case against DMC-Texas, I have no doubt he would have pursued it. Especially considering his best friend was also his attorney. Instead, by all accounts, he kept pretty close & friendly contact with the folks at DMC-Texas.


Just goes to show that more time and effort should have been put towards R&D of new parts and improving the quality of parts instead of selling overpriced backpacks and iPad covers.
Just my thoughts...

I'm actually totally fine with all of the merchandise. I'm fairly certain they don't design any of it themselves- they simply field ideas from various companies who pitch them offers, then accept the ones they like. I'd have to imagine the deals they've made with Urban Outfitters and Target in the past were probably quite lucrative cash infusions for which they spent minimal time. Every t-shirt they authorize helps pay to have other parts recreated, period. Not only that, this sort of merchandise lifts the DeLorean marque into the public eye further. Plus, lets face it- even us enthusiasts gobble up all of these baubles; it's a win for all.

[Rich W]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/delorean/lawsuit/prweb13031737.htm

[David T]

Actually what it really means is that DMCH thinks that there is no one else who can successfully take them to court about this so they made a settlement with Sally for all of the rights to use the trademark for all of their business purposes. Interpreting from the press release they made a small payment to settle but what it does NOT say is as interesting. My guess is DMCH may have made a deal to pay a small amount against future sales. Kind of a licensing fee. I don't think Sally expected to hit a bonanza but she needs *some* income and this insures her some money going forward. The de minimous payment was to cover her legal and out-of-pocket expenses. Just my humble opinion. The big news is that now there is peace in the family. Sally should now say good things about DMCH. Maybe she will even promote DMCH as part of the agreement!

[OverlandMan]

Price increases to begin in 3, 2, 1...

[Soundkillr]

Price increases to begin in 3, 2, 1...

Exactly. The only ones who lose here are the consumer. All court fees will be passed on to the customer....

[louielouie2000]

A somewhat more detailed version of this ran in the Austin Statesman this morning:

http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/entertainment/suit-settled-over-car-used-in-back-to-the-future-f/nn6sx/

[steve]

I new I should have ordered those parts:mallet:

[DMCVegas]

A somewhat more detailed version of this ran in the Austin Statesman this morning:

http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/entertainment/suit-settled-over-car-used-in-back-to-the-future-f/nn6sx/

Quite a few choice tidbits here:

"The estate will retain rights to John DeLorean's name, aspects of his personal life and depictions of his likeness that aren't public property or purchased from legitimate rights holders."

Well, there goes my hopes for a gangster John Z. De Lorean shirt. I always wanted something like this with JZD's scowl while wearing a bandana...

http://rlv.zcache.com/get_money_shirt-r6778139238154ad1bf9f1b52c91aa001_va6lr_512.jpg


R. Scott Thompson, an attorney representing Sally DeLorean and the DeLorean estate, declined to comment on the specifics of the settlement but said his client "is satisfied with the outcome and is especially pleased that she and her daughter will be in a position to protect all aspects of John's legacy going forward."

Ok. So what about Kathryn and Zachary? Both in terms of their own interests of protecting their father's legacy, as well as their notable absence from this lawsuit and no prior objections to DMCH?


Does anyone have any information on just who Sally De Lorean is? From what I've found out so far, she's 52, possibly lives in Far Hills (I'm not posting her home address or phone number, and the home may have been listed for rent in July, so who knows if she's still there), is involved in health care (no MD listings under her name so far, but I would assume she's possibility involved with administration based upon her income, but not sure if income was based off of alternative sources, and her listed employer doesn't have a public employee directory), looks like her previous last name was Reeve before marrying John, and for some reason I'm getting a hit that says there is a 50% chance she's Asian, though everything else says she is of French ancestry. I mean no ill will, I'm just genuinely curious. I've been able to ferret out more information on Roy Nesseth, and even spoken with his kids. But she's one helluva mystery for me.

Also, it seems this is not her first lawsuit. I'm wondering if perhaps she was the one behind much of the legal maneuvering that kept the Bedminster Estate from foreclosure for so long...
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/dogged-article-1.508561

[David T]

Sally was an RN. The Bedminster estate was all JZD trying to hold on to it against the bankruptcy court. He had a plan to repay most of the debt but the court saw fit to eventually force the sale. Since Sally was JZD's widow she inherited all of the rights to the name and I am assuming the Will dd not give any of those rights to the other children. That was probably one of the main reasons DMCH finally did the deal. If DMCH believed anyone else could hold them hostage over those rights they would not have dealt with Sally. No sense settling with her and having to fight that battle all over again with others.

[DMCVegas]

Yeah, the whole foreclosure on Bedminster was pretty wrong considering how many creditors were paid back their monies from the DMC Bankruptcy (something like .96¢ on the dollar!). Though I don't know all of JZD's personal debts. But LMC for many years was his big source of income, and then from it's subsequent sale.

The estimated income level must only have been based off of her residential zip code then. Still, I have no ill will, and mean no harm. I'm just genuinely curious.

Somehow though, I think that quite a bit more was at stake here beyond the sign on a door and some t-shirts. Especially with that settlement to separate the man from the marque so that Sally could retain John's images, and Wynn gets the company name. Which he needs for H.R. 2675, aka the “Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015″.

The wording is AMAZING in as it looks as though it was drafted specifically for DMCH. Which doesn't surprise me as the Representative who drafted this proposed legislation is literally 8 miles across Beltway 8 from DMCH. In order to qualify, you MUST have legal ownership of the trademarks and everything else, and then you get an exemption on modern safety requirements, as well as EPA rules in order to install modern engines with the caveat of OBD-II. Which with a simple Control Pack from the engine manufacturer, you've got installed. What does that mean you ask? DMCH can start building Brand-New DMCs with new VINs starting with "1" instead of "S" as real cars, and NOT kit cars. No more recycling of VINs. It also means they can dump the PRV V6 and switch over to something more modern, and all this as a fully-fledged auto manufacturer. In essence, DMCH then becomes a new, true DMC building brand-new cars. Sally by signing that paperwork made that happen, and stopped Kathryn & Zachary from ever preventing it if they so chose to.

Only a handful of manufacturers could take advantage of this, because you must be a low-volume manufacturer. As such you gain not only all of the aforementioned exemptions, but you get the biggest one yet: Selling factory-direct to the consumer instead of through a dealer network.

There is a reason that DMCH has been flirting with those "innovations" of chassis and lighter underbodies with the EV vehicles.

Those weren't customized DMC-12s, those were actually test mules for what's coming...

Bravo to you, Wynne! DMC will finally become the new Lotus!